Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

PATA Newsletter Issue #1 December

Jan 06, 2001

As the contact person and newsletter editor for the Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance (PATA), we appreciate the opportunity to provide this Newsletter to many concerned area residents. PATA members wish to share with you important community information that affects all area residents. It is our belief that being well informed is the best way to achieve common goals and strive toward improvements in our community.
Thank you for taking the time to review this Newsletter. We look forward to the opportunity to hear from you on your thoughts, concerns and ideas for the continued improvement of our community.
Bob Harding Jeffrey Fix Contact Person Newsletter Editor

PO Box 518
Pickerington, OH
43147
Email ?– pickeringtontaxpayers@hotmail.com

Phone: 755-2464



PATA?’s Vision Statement:

The cooperative and efficient workings of our City, Township and School District for the Good of the ?“Greater Pickerington Community.?”

PATA?’s Mission statement:

Consult, review and make public comments on issues that affect Pickerington area taxpayers. To encourage and provide a forum for Pickerington area taxpayers to speak out.

We Believe our Community Needs:

 Controlled Residential Growth.

 Growth in our Commercial / Industrial Tax Base.

 A Comprehensive, Realistic Plan for our Schools.

 ?“Smart Growth?” is this combination.

The First Issue to Consider: Unchecked residential growth will result in either increased taxes or a decreased quality of services.

What is happening: Growth is basically the transition of farmland into commercial, industrial or residential property.

Violet Township and the City of Pickerington are the two major governmental agencies within our area. Both of these agencies affect our growth by maintaining ?“zoning?” for tracts of land. Today, both the City Council and the Township Trustees have approved ?“Residential?” zoning for many tracts of land within our area. As development occurs on these parcels every landowner pays taxes for the community services that are required. Services like Public Schools, Police and Fire Departments, Sewer and Water Utilities, and Road Construction and Maintenance to name but a few.

With the passage of recent levy issues you are obviously well aware of just some of these costs.

 $77.5 million dollars for new school construction.
 $1 million dollars toward new facilities for police protection.

Both recent levy issues noted that our community has doubled in residential population in the last 10 ?–12 years.

Just the tip of the Iceberg

These public buildings, and then the corresponding operational costs, are but a small portion of what the total tally will be in the remaining transitional development should area farmland continue changing to some other alternative land use in our community.

Is our rate of primarily residential development sustainable?

Cost of Community Services

Early in the summer of 2000 Fairfield County Officials held a number of public informational meetings regarding area growth. At these meetings copies of facts were available about a Cost of Communities Services (COCS) study conducted by Allen Prindle, a professor in the Economics Department of Otterbein College.

In this study figures for various categories of land use were compared to their taxes generated in the ability to support the various community?’s infrastructures.
(Schools, roads, water & sewer, police, and fire to name a few)

 Farmland?’s COCS ranged from $0.05 to $0.17 for every dollar generated in taxes collected.

 Commercial/Industrial COCS ranged from $0.27 to $0.51 for every dollar generated in taxes collected.

 Residential Development COCS ranged from $1.10 to $1.15 for every tax dollar collected.

This study concludes that growing communities need to balance both commercial/industrial developments with residential development or they will experience higher service expenditures compared to revenue streams.

As you can see, continued additions of residential homes, without the proper balance of commercial and industrial growth as well, will lead to an economic impasse.

Are we in balance?

A Better Option: The answer that makes the most sense is to strike the proper balance between commercial/industrial development and residential growth. This must be done within our School District boundaries.
The future of the Pickerington Area will be determined by the decisions that area residents and their representatives in the local governments make.

The Second Issue to Consider: On December 5, 2000 Pickerington City Council passed Ordinance #2000-137 Relative to Zoning Classifications.

This Ordnance specifically states ?–

?“In every case where territory has been specifically included within a district, or where territory becomes a part of the incorporated area of the Municipality by annexation, such territory shall automatically be classified as Residential District (R4) until otherwise classified by ordinance."


R4 ?– indicates Suburban Residential District 4 units per acre.


Is this the formula for a
?“Smart Growth?” plan?


The Third Issue to Consider: Again, on December 5, 2000 Pickerington City Council passed an additional Ordinance, # 2000-124. This Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Reynolds, Inc. for the Diley Road Well Field Expansion Project. This Ordinance was passed as ?“Emergency Legislation?” and authorized costs not to exceed $254,079.00.

Currently the city of Pickerington pumps 1 million gallons of drinking water a day from the Diley Well Field. This expansion is being sought in order to increase the rate of water pumped to 3.5 million gallons per day.

 A Burgess & Niple study Oct. 2000 indicated:
1. The shallow groundwater depths and their close corresponding elevations to the water level in the ponds indicate that the ponds are hydraulically connected to the regional groundwater system.
2. The resulting drawdown contours indicate that groundwater levels may be lowered by 1 to 2 feet under the vernal pools in the Pickerington Ponds Metro Park.

A Potential Threat to Pickerington Ponds

 In a letter between the City Manager and the EPA, ?– dated 11/21/00 ?“The City sees no need for a public hearing prior to the issuance of a well site approval.?”

?“The city is having a study done to determine if there is any hydraulic connection between the Diley Well Field and the Ponds at Metro Parks.?” ?…..

?“When the study is completed we will share it with all interested parties; however, the well site approval should not be delayed pending completion of the study.?”

If you disagree and feel requests for a public hearing are in order contact:


Kevin Johnson, Public Involvement Coordinator ?– Ohio EPA Phone: (614) 728-0049

Smart Growth


Growth is inevitable, and if you asked area residents if they wanted Pickerington to continue to grow, you would get a favorable response from a vast majority. Well-planned growth will provide area residents with a strong value for their land in that services provided will be of high quality, and reasonable cost. Unplanned growth will unfortunately lead to the opposite, lower land values based on higher taxes and mediocre services. Violet Township and the City of Pickerington are at a crossroads as we enter the New Year. There has been much talk about merger, annexations, and other growth options. The unfortunate fact is that there is currently ZERO cooperation between the City Council and Township Trustees with respect to the growth of the Pickerington area. While ?“turf wars?” are an ongoing issue between the City and the Township, growth in Pickerington is going on with out a clear long-term vision that is balanced between residential, commercial, and industrial growth. Without this balance, EVERYONE LOSES.



Merger


One of the consistent headlines in local newspapers this past year was the conversation about merging the City of Pickerington and Violet Township. All area residents received, and many responded to, a survey about a possible merger earlier this fall.

While the response to this survey was overwhelmingly negative (meaning that residents are not interested in a merger), the Pickerington City Council led by Mayor Hughes continues to push a merger. In a recent letter to the editor, Mr. Hughes made this quite clear. More than half of his letter was dedicated to the definition and set up of a merger. The question is why Mr. Hughes would show this as the favored choice when the residents of the area have already very clearly voiced their expressed desire not to be a part of a merger between the City and the Township? It is a fact that no one from the City Government reviewed the survey results, even after the Violet Township Trustees sent an invitation to City Council to do so. In the December 6th Violet Township Trustee Meeting, Chairman Dunlap noted that a letter from the Township had recently been sent to the City explaining that the Township will not participate in any further talks about a merger based upon the citizen responses to the survey they conducted. Why then would Mr. Hughes continue to offer this as a solution when the public, and the governmental agency that would need to agree to such a move, have all overwhelmingly said ?“NO!?”



Annexation



Mr. Hughes?’ definition of annexation needs a little work. As defined in Webster?’s ?– to annex is to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state ?–or- to obtain or take for oneself. Annexation is not an agreement between the city and township. Rather it is an agreement between the city and a landowner. In such an agreement for the landowner to become a part of the city, they pay city taxes, and receive city services. If this same landowner is a developer they may request more favorable zoning rulings, in exchange. (Meaning the developer/landowner can make a lot of money building and selling more residential homes). Pickerington, under the leadership of Mayor Gray and now Mayor Hughes has been extremely aggressive in its efforts to annex land to the city. The reasoning behind this is pretty simple: Money. The more land the city can annex, the more tax dollars can be collected. And for a city in debt there is no sweeter music than the sound of new tax dollars. The problem is that by annexing land that is to be developed into residential areas, the city is actually digging itself into a deeper hole over the long term. The continuing growth of residential areas with little offsetting commercial or industrial development has already and will continue to deeply affect all Violet Township and City residents. Previously noted in this Newsletter were effects in the Cost of Community Services (COCS). Thus forcing either an increase in taxation (evermore school levies for buildings and operating costs just as was passed in November as just one example), or a decrease in the quality of services provided. All of this leads to the following questions:


Potential Concerns
Of Area Residents



1. Does City Council and Mayor Hughes have a vision for the future of Pickerington?




2. If so, does it include any commercial or industrial tax base within Pickerington School District boundaries that can offset what will inevitably be significantly higher taxes for each of us?



3. Or, does Council plan to do everything it can to annex its way out of the problem?




4. Is this why Council spent $125,000 of your money to lobby against a state law that would make annexations more democratic?


Alternative Forms to Annexation or Merger for Economic Development and Cooperation

CEDA

A CEDA is a Cooperative Economic Development Agreement between two governmental entities (in this case the Township and the City).


JEDD


A JEDD is a joint Economic Development District (again between the City and the Township).

These alternatives are truly the way to make progress happen in the Pickerington area. Yet these two potential solutions appear to be the last resort for Council.

A Call to Action

Every community needs a forum, a neutral meeting ground, where residences can seek consensus about land use and smart growth issues. Broad based panels of local citizens and elected officials can craft a growth management plan, introduce performance zoning, and pursue other progressive measures.



The next ?“Growth Summit?” meeting is to be held Sunday, January 21st (Sunday) ?– 2:00pm at the High School Performing Arts Center. PATA strongly encourages all Pickerington Area residents to attend this meeting in an effort to give a voice to the will of the people, and to direct a cooperative effort between the Township and the City Council by working on a CEDA or a JEDD. Merger is clearly not the solution, and annexation will not work in the long run.